Active glucose absorption is thought to depend on a gradient of sodium ion concentration across the brush border membrane of intestinal epithelial cells. This concept is generally accepted, although its validity has never been adequately evaluated in the human small intestine in vivo. According to this hypothesis, the rate of glucose absorption should decrease markedly if the luminal sodium concentration is markedly reduced, and glucose absorption against a concentration gradient should cease entirely if luminal sodium is lower than intracellular sodium concentration. In the present series of experiments we were not able to show an important role of intraluminal sodium concentration in the active absorption of glucose from the human, rat, and dog ileum in vivo. Specifically, glucose absorption was minimally reduced or not reduced at all when intraluminal sodium concentration was reduced from 140 to as low as 2.5 mEq/liter. The discrepancy between our results and those of previous workers whose data suggest that removal of intraluminal sodium should markedly inhibit active glucose absorption is not entirely clear, but there are a number of differences in experimental design between most previous studies and our own. Although our data show that active glucose absorption proceeds at a near normal rate even when lumen sodium concentration is reduced below 3 mEq/liter, our results do not disprove the sodium gradient theory because of the theoretic possibility that the microclimate adjacent to the brush border has a high concentration of sodium even when luminal sodium concentration is markedly reduced. The validity of the sodium gradient hypothesis would appear to be critically dependent on such a microclimate.
David A. Saltzman, Floyd C. Rector Jr., John S. Fordtran
Usage data is cumulative from March 2024 through March 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 183 | 69 |
64 | 37 | |
Scanned page | 352 | 28 |
Citation downloads | 56 | 0 |
Totals | 655 | 134 |
Total Views | 789 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.